JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. This petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs: “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued against the respondents directing them to assess the compensation regarding acquisition of land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 16-min./27, bearing Khasra No. 60, measuring 00-01-14 hectares, Khasra NO. 64, measuring 00-42-05 hectares, Khasra No. 67, measuring 00-10-03 hectares, Kita-3, situated at Chak Barvi, Post Office Chalnair, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. keeping in view the nature of the land as “Bagicha Bhakhal Aval Faldaar” instead of ‘Ghasni’ as per the orders passed by the Collector, Settlement alongwith all other benefits available under the law including interest, solatium and additional compensation under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. (ii) That the entire record pertaining to the case from respondent No. 1’s office may kindly be summoned for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. (iii) That the petition may kindly be allowed with costs throughout. (iv) Any other writ, order or directions which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the light of facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued to the respondents.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 16-min./27, bearing Khasra No. 60, measuring 00-01-14 hectares, Khasra No. 64, measuring 00-42-05 hectares, Khasra No. 67, measuring 00-10-03 hectares, Kite-3, situated at Chak Barvi, Post Office Chalnair, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla has been acquired by the respondents for the purpose of construction/widening of ‘Theog-Kotkhai-Hatkoti Road’ in revenue village Barvi, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla. The land in issue before its acquisition by the Government was owned by the petitioner. During the process of acquisition, notices were issued to interested parties including the petitioner for negotiation of land rates and the petitioner on the basis of records available and instructions issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh, negotiated the land rates alongwith other land owners. The entire compensation amount assessed was Rs.20,83,101/- in favour of right holders including the petitioner. The amount was assessed keeping in view the nature of the land recorded in revenue record and apportionment of compensation was also strictly made as per recorded share of the land owners in the Record of Rights. The entire compensation amount assessed was Rs.20,83,101/- in favour of right holders including the petitioner. The amount was assessed keeping in view the nature of the land recorded in revenue record and apportionment of compensation was also strictly made as per recorded share of the land owners in the Record of Rights. As the land was acquired on the basis of rates which were negotiated, no reference petitions were filed by the persons whose land was so acquired. According to the petitioner, at the relevant time when Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for the purpose of acquiring his land and at the time when award was announced on negotiated rates, he was not aware of the nature of his land as it was recorded in the revenue records. He subsequently came to know that Khasra No. 64 owned by him was recorded as ‘Ghasni’ in the revenue record and compensation had also been paid to him as per the said revenue entry, whereas the fact of the matter was that the land comprised in Khasra No. 64 at the stage before its acquisition was in the shape of fruit bearing apple orchard. Accordingly, as per the petitioner, he was entitled to compensation on the basis of actual nature of land. Accordingly, the petitioner made representations in this regard to the concerned authorities and requested that he be paid compensation with regard to land comprised in Khasra No. 64 on the basis of its classification as fruit bearing apple orchard rather than ‘Ghasani’. He also moved an application before Collector (Settlement) under Section 37 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 for correction of entries relating to Khasra Nos. 64, 67 and 3032 regarding land situated in Mauza Barvi, Post Office, Chalnair, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla. The spot was inspected by the concerned field staff and after recording of the statements of witnesses on the spot, report was duly submitted to the authorities concerned and Collector (Settlement), Shimla Division vide order dated 9th April, 2013 allowed the application filed by the petitioner to the effect that nature of land qua Khasra No. 64 which was recorded as ‘Ghasni’ was not correct as per the factual position and that the same should have been recorded as “Bagicha Bhakhal Aval Faldaar”. According to the petitioner, after the revenue entries were corrected by the order passed by Collector (Settlement), he made representation in this regard to respondent No. 2 to pay compensation to him with regard to land comprised in Khasra No. 64 keeping in view the nature of land, however, respondent No. 2 did not do the needful. Accordingly, on these basis, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for the reliefs already mentioned above. 3. In its reply filed by the State, the factum of acquisition of the land of the petitioner and payment of compensation to him on the basis of negotiation is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has been compensated for land comprised in Khasra No. 64 by treating the said land as ‘Ghasani’. The factum of the said revenue entry having been corrected by Collector (Settlement), Shimla is also not in dispute. However, as per the respondent-State, the petitioner was not entitled for any enhanced compensation by treating the land comprised in Khasra No. 64 as “Bagicha Bhakhal Aval Faldaar” rather than ‘Ghasani’ because after the acquisition of the land, the State had become the owner of the same and at the time when the land in issue was acquired, as per the revenue records the same was reflected as ‘Ghasani’. Further, as per the State, the writ petition was also not maintainable because the petitioner was having alternative remedies for the redressal of his grievance, if any. On these basis, the claim of the petitioner was refuted by the State. 4. Another point which was urged by the State was that the order passed by the Collector (Settlement) had been challenged by the State Government in appeal under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the appeal so filed by the respondent-State has been dismissed by Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division vide order dated 25.07.2016, photo copy of which has been placed on record by learned Additional Advocate General. Thus, the factum of Khasra No. 64 being “Bagicha Bhakhal Aval Faldaar” and the same being earlier erroneously recorded in the revenue record as ‘Ghasani’ stands concluded against the State and in favour of the petitioner. 5. Thus, the factum of Khasra No. 64 being “Bagicha Bhakhal Aval Faldaar” and the same being earlier erroneously recorded in the revenue record as ‘Ghasani’ stands concluded against the State and in favour of the petitioner. 5. In view of the above mentioned factual position, the issue for adjudication in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner is legally entitled to be compensated for the land which has been acquired by the Government comprised in Khasra No. 64 by treating the same as “Bagicha Bhakhal Aval Faldaar” or by treating the same as ‘Ghasani’. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The factum of the land of the petitioner having been acquired by the respondent-State is not in dispute and the factum of the petitioner having been compensated for the said land by treating the same as ‘Ghasani’ is also not in dispute. It is further a matter of record that the compensations which have been paid to the right holders including the petitioner were negotiated rates as per Negotiated Award dated 04.12.2009. This award is available on record as Annexure P-1. A perusal of this award demonstrates that the land owners accepted different rates for cultivated land as well as uncultivated land. The rates so accepted were negotiated as full and final rates and no statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act were to be admissible over and above lands so accepted by way of negotiation. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced hereinbelow: “…..As per the Govt. instructions issued vide NO. PBW (B) A(6)2-64/2001 dated 13.7.2004 and subsequent notification No. PBW (B&R) B(6)9/2008-III dated 15.10.2007 the Negotiation Sub Committee/District Level Committee has been constituted to negotiate the land rates with the land owners for the acquisition of land under the State Road Project. Keeping in view the above notification the sub Committee/District Level Committee as constituted negotiated the land rates with the land owners so present, by dividing all type of land into two blocks i.e. cultivable and non cultivable. The cultivable land was divided in ‘A’ block and un-cultivable land divided in ‘B’ block. In the instant case, the classification of land under acquisition is classified as Bagicha Bakhal Abal Faldar, Ghasni and Gair Mumkin Sarak therefore out of the entire land involved in present acquisition in this village cultivated land is 0-05-07 ha. And uncultivated is 0-25-04 ha. The cultivable land was divided in ‘A’ block and un-cultivable land divided in ‘B’ block. In the instant case, the classification of land under acquisition is classified as Bagicha Bakhal Abal Faldar, Ghasni and Gair Mumkin Sarak therefore out of the entire land involved in present acquisition in this village cultivated land is 0-05-07 ha. And uncultivated is 0-25-04 ha. As per the latest Record of Rights. The land owners accepted the rate of land for cultivated land @ Rs.11,000,000/- per bigha and un-cultivated land @ Rs.4,00,000/- per bigha. Both these rates were negotiated as full and final rates and no statutory benefits under the Act will be admissible over and above. There are 5 (Five) Nos. fruit bearing trees on the acquired land. The valuation thereof has got assessed from competent authority of the Horticultural Department and same has conveyed vide Deputy Director (Horticulture) Shimla District Shimla-2 letter NO. P.P.O.(K) 1-7/87-7405 date 29.08.2009 in respect of Khasra No. 303/1 (0-04-85). The valuation of Rs.10,984/- has been included in the award. These rates were accepted as full and final rates by the land owners. For the above purpose proceedings of negotiation of District Level Committee has been separately drawn. The proceeding of negotiation was finally approved by the Govt. and conveyed vide letter No. PBW (B) F(10) 9/2008-1 dated 30.06.2009. The total compensation for the acquired land comes as under:- 2. COMPENSATION:- 1. Market value of cultivated land Measuring 0-05-07 ha. Rs.7,41,116.00 2. Market value of un-cultivated Land Measuring 0-25-04 ha. Rs.13,31,001,00 3. Market value of 5 Nos. Fruit trees Rs.10,984.00 Total Compensation for total Land Measuring 0-31-11 Sq. Mtr. and 5 Nos. Fruit bearing trees Rs.20,83,101.00 (Rupees Twenty lac Eighty three thousand one hundred and one only) Hence, I hereby assess and determine Rs.20.83.101.00 (Rupees Twenty lac Eighty three thousand one hundred and one) only an amount of compensation for which person(s) interested are entitled to claim and receive as per the respective share recorded in the Record of Rights as per the provision of law. The interested persons are not entitled for seeking enhancement of market value of land under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The interested persons are not entitled for seeking enhancement of market value of land under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. But they are entitled for the market value for the structure and trees (if any) separately, as per the market value which will be determined by the expert agencies in due course of time at the time of announcement of Supplementary Award alongwith the market value of the land, which will be notified by the Govt. under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, if required to be acquired at a later stage.” 8. The compensation which has been paid to the petitioner on the basis of Negotiated Award for Khasra number in issue, i.e. Khasra No. 64 is by treating the said land as uncultivated land. The application which was filed by the petitioner before Settlement Collector for correction of revenue entries pertaining to Khasra No. 64 was duly accepted by the authority concerned and the classification of Khasra number has been changed from ‘Ghasani’ to “Bagicha Bhakhal Aval Faldaar”. The correction which has been so ordered is based on the report which was submitted by the concerned officials after verifying the spot. Appeal which was filed against the order so passed by Settlement Collector before Division Commissioner, Shimla has also been dismissed vide order passed by Division Commissioner, Shimla Division dated 25.07.2016. In these circumstances, when the revenue authorities have concurred with the petitioner that the classification of land comprised in Khasra No. 64 is “Bagicha Bhakhal Aval Faldaar” instead of ‘Ghasani’ and necessary corrections has also been carried out with regard to classification of land comprised in Khasra No. 64, there is no justification with the respondents to deny the petitioner compensation for Khasra No. 64 by treating its classification as “Bagicha Bhakhal Aval Faldaar”. 9. The argument of the respondent-State that the classification of the land was ‘Ghasani’ when it was acquired by the State Government and subsequent change in the same when the ownership has already passed hands cannot confer any right upon the petitioner is totally misconceived. It is not the case of the State that when it acquired the land, the same was ‘Ghasani’, but subsequently they developed the same and resultantly, its classification changed from ‘Ghasani’ to “Bagicha Bhakhal Aval Faldaar”. It is not the case of the State that when it acquired the land, the same was ‘Ghasani’, but subsequently they developed the same and resultantly, its classification changed from ‘Ghasani’ to “Bagicha Bhakhal Aval Faldaar”. On the contrary, it is apparent and evident from the case put forth by the petitioner as well as the corrections carried out by the revenue authorities on the basis of application filed by the petitioner that at the time when the land comprised in Khasra No. 64 was acquired by the respondent-State, the same was “Bagicha Bhakhal Aval Faldaar”, but its classification being reflected in the revenue record as ‘Ghasani’ was incorrect. This discrepancy which was existing in the revenue records has been subsequently rectified. 10. Therefore, in my considered view, the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for land comprised in Khasra No. 64 by treating it as “Bagicha Bhakhal Aval Faldaar” and not as ‘Ghasani’. The petitioner is entitled to be paid the difference of amount which exists between cultivated land and uncultivated land. 11. The argument of the State that the petition is not maintainable and the petitioner should have filed a petition/application under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act is also without any merit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Maqbool Ali Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2011) 15 SCC 383 has held: “9. The remedy of a land holder whose land is taken without acquisition is either to file a civil suit for recovery of possession and/or for compensation, or approach the High Court by filing a writ petition if the action can be shown to be arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, biased, malafide or without the authority of law, and seek a direction that the land should be acquired in a manner known to law. The appellant has chosen to follow the second course. The High Court was not therefore, justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the remedy was under section 18 of the Act. The order of the High Court, which is virtually a non-speaking order, apparently proceeded on the basis that appellant was seeking increase in compensation for an acquired land. The matter therefore requires to be reconsidered by the High Court, on merits. 6. But that does not mean that the delay should be ignored or appellant should be given relief. The order of the High Court, which is virtually a non-speaking order, apparently proceeded on the basis that appellant was seeking increase in compensation for an acquired land. The matter therefore requires to be reconsidered by the High Court, on merits. 6. But that does not mean that the delay should be ignored or appellant should be given relief. In such matters, the person aggrieved should approach the High Court diligently. If the writ petition is belated, unless there is good and satisfactory explanation for the delay, the petition will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Further the High Court should be satisfied that the case warrants the exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India, and that the matter is one where the alternative remedy of suit is not appropriate. For example, if the person aggrieved and the State are owners of adjoining lands and he claims that the State has encroached over a part of his land, or if there is a simple boundary dispute, the remedy will lie only in a civil suit, as the dispute does not relate to any highhanded, arbitrary or unreasonable action of the officers of the State and there is a need to examine disputed questions relating to title, extent and actual possession. But where the person aggrieved establishes that the State had highhandedly taken over his land without recourse to acquisition or deprived him of his property without authority of law, the landholder may seek his remedy in a writ petition. 11. When a writ petitioner makes out a case for invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court would not relegate him to the alternative remedy of a civil court, merely because the matter may involve an incidental examination of disputed questions of facts. 11. When a writ petitioner makes out a case for invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court would not relegate him to the alternative remedy of a civil court, merely because the matter may involve an incidental examination of disputed questions of facts. The question that will ultimately weigh with the High Court is this : Whether the person is seeking remedy in a matter which is primarily a civil dispute to be decided by a civil court, or whether the matter relates to a dispute having a public law element or violation of any fundamental right or to any arbitrary and high-handed action.(See the decisions of this court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd - 2004(3) SCC 553 and Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Vardan Linkers - 2008(12) SCC 500 ].” 12. In the present case, the land has been acquired by the respondent-State by way of negotiated award and the rates which have been mutually arrived at in the said negotiated award are not in dispute. The case of the petitioner simpliciter was that he has been paid for Khasra No. 64 by treating the same as ‘Ghasani’, whereas he is entitled to be paid for the same by treating it as “Bagicha Bhakhal Aval Faldaar”. To justify his claim, he has placed on record an order passed by the competent revenue authority before whom he had moved an application for correction of classification of the land. During the pendency of the present writ petition, challenge laid by the State to the order passed by Collector Settlement, Shimla Division on 09.04.2013 has also been dismissed by Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division vide order dated 25.07.2016. Therefore, in these circumstances, when there is no disputed question of fact involved in the case and even as per the revenue authorities, the land comprised in Khasra No. 64 is not ‘Ghasani’ but is “Bagicha Bhakhal Aval Faldaar”, the present petition in which the arbitrary and discriminatory act of the respondents of denying compensation to the petitioner for his land acquired by way of Negotiated Award has been challenged, is maintainable. 13. 13. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to pay compensation to the petitioner for Khasra No. 64, situated at Chak Barvi, Post Office Chalnair, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla by treating the same as “Bagicha Bhakhal Aval Faldaar” and not as ‘Ghasani’. The respondents are accordingly directed to pay the difference of the amount, which the petitioner is entitled to alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date the said amount is actually paid. No order as to costs.